That’s the most authoritarian bullshit I’ve ever read, in other words:
“We should censure him because he didn’t seek out our permission to express himself!”
What a bunch of statist garbage. Does it actually have any chance of passing? Who are on the LPF EC?
-Jeff Wood, Libertarian Party of Michigan, after reading Paul Stanton’s motion
A member of the Libertarian Party of Florida, Augustus Invictus, was the subject of lies and personal attacks by the disgraced former Chairman of the LPF, Adrian Wyilie. They were based on a personal hatred, with a bit of religious bigotry thrown in for good measure, and a side order of the ever growing cry of “racist”, the sure sign you are dealing with an emotionally and intellectually stunted individual. His attempt to throw Mr. Invictus out of the party failed, so in a last ditch effort to damage his rival, a press release was posted, at his direction, accusing Augustus Invictus of being a supporter of government sponsored eugenics programs, and attempting to start a civil war. Almost immediately after he resigned in disgrace, as did many of his cronies on the Executive Committee. You may listen to the audio recording of the meeting and failed vote to remove the Libertarian US Senate Candidate from the LPF here:
In the 18 months since, the press release has given the philosophical opponents of Augustus Invictus a justification for ever present and growing persecution. While another opposing party could have theoretically made such accusations, the public tends to take them with a grain of salt. When your own party condemns you in public it carries the weight of authority. Enough weight that the LPF press release is in the first paragraph of the Wikipedia entry of Augustus Invictus. A Google search of the term “Augustus Invictus Eugenics” produces over 3400 results, and the captions show the word “Eugenics” prominently on every link, and as evidence I have posted the first page of the Google search in the footnotes. (1)
Following the release of this LPF statement, the left wing media, American Marxists and sympathisers, and ANTIFA groups around the United States spread the story like wildfire. Subsequently, in early 2016 a campaign event in Portland, Oregon was attacked by a mob of ANTIFA terrorists, who beat attendees with 2×4’s and tire irons, and broke windows out of their vehicles as they fled, you can read them gloat and plan future attacks in message boards and Facebook groups across the internet.
He was subsequently denied entry into Canada and one of the journalists covering the canceled event had urine poured on her head, making international headlines.
If you follow the trail of insanity it all leads back to the former LPF Chairman’s witch hunt, and the condemnation made in his last ditch effort after the failed vote to remove Augustus from the party. The entire matter is so simple, one can only assume malice as a motive for not resolving it without resorting to Attorneys.
On October 5, 2015 the LPF falsely stated in a press release:
“The Libertarian Party of Florida condemns Augustus Sol Invictus for calling for civil war and his unwillingness to reject eugenics.”
The facts are that on June 1, 2015, he had already repudiated his college paper in this video which included the following quotes, time-stamped for the reader to easily confirm:
“While in law school, I wrote a paper in which I stated that we, as a society, have a duty to implement a state sponsored eugenics program. I argued that the implementation of such a program would be the most humane approach to mental and physical handicaps, incurable diseases, and other such ills afflicting humankind. What my critics fail to take notice of, is that this paper was written between 5 and 6 years ago. I wrote the paper as a staff writer for my journal in law school. It is, of course, a cardinal sin of politics for a politician to change his mind about something, but that is the case here”. (5:29-6:02)
“The fact is, that a eugenics program in the wrong hands would be a monstrosity”. (7:19-7:25)
He continues in a detailed repudiation of state sponsored eugenics. The Libertarian Party of Florida at the time did not listen to his simple request:
“Let us examine what I actually said, rather than parroting internet tabloids”
The insults, threats, boycotts, and slander have continued. Recently, a new level of vile and despicable behavior has been reached. The madness has now spread to Pennsylvania, where condemnations turned to boycotts, culminating in threats that forced the venue cancellation of Mid Atlantic Liberty Festival in Harrisburg. The organizer of this event is the State Libertarian Party Chairman in Pennsylvania. The victims are not just Augustus Invictus, but his opponent Will Coley, and every person who supported the event with their wallet, and every person who wanted to hear the two men engage in debate, and which can only serve to ultimately build consensus, or exhaust the ideas debated to a point we can agree to disagree and move forward. Stifling the debate stops the progress of liberty. A new venue has been secured, and the debate will go on, but the slander and threats are now being turned on the family of Mr. Invictus. Fed up with it all, his patience exhausted, he appealed to the Executive Committee of the Libertarian Party of Florida for redress of this wrong.
I was made aware of the situation over the weekend, and called the LPF Chairman, Char-Lez Braden. He replied via text that he was with his family but would call me back later, and I sent a basic explanation of the situation, including the prophecy that Stanton would stir up, as I put it, “a shitstorm”. I continued to work with the Chair right up to the time Paul Stanton filed his absurd motion. For an EC member to work with the Chair on a resolution of a problem regarding a member, to avoid massive legal expenditures is not just well within my rights, but it is a duty. A Google Drive link to screen-shots of these good faith efforts to ward this problem will be provided in the footnotes. (2)
This afternoon, after I asked the Chair to provide contact information for our “legal team”, a lawyer joined the email conversation. It is pretty obvious I thought it was our lawyer, as I was demanding information to fact check some things the Chair was saying, and letting him know the Chair requires approval of any money over $100.00, so he needed to share information with us, and I made specific requests. It was not until Stanton filed the motion that I even realized it was the attorney for Augustus.
It is completely irrelevant, as the only request by the Chair was to not talk in public. I was working with the Chair and the rest of the EC to ward off an enormous expense and seek justice for an LPF member. The only reason any of this is public is that Stanton filed a public motion and forced me to disclose all this to defend myself, after he had already leaked the story to the press. Furthermore, had the Chair not been trying to avoid a simple solution by lying to me about imaginary lawyers, it would not be an issue.
In any case the following exchange occurred and it is pretty obvious I thought the Attorney was the same one we were just discussing. I still have not yet been given information who these Attorneys were that he was talking to.
Mr. Perenich and the EC.
The legal services of Mr. Perenich represent an unnecessary expenditure by the LPF. No lawsuit has been filed. The only reason we need the legal services of Mr. Perenich would be in the event we refuse to retract the false statements made in the name of the LPF on October 5, 2015.
Mr. Invictus has already stated he would accept my letter, which is very reasonable and promotes a positive message. I was told legal found it unacceptable, I would ask Mr. Perenich to expllain as I would rather edit it than pay for lawyers to do so. If they review it and find it acceptable, then the Chair can issue it, as is his right as LPF spokesman. If he refuses, we may have the opportunity to vote on it Sunday.
Mr. Invictus stated plainly that a legal case would be a last resort if we refused to retract the lies we took down Monday. This entire thing is beginning to appear disingenuous, as you should not need a lawyer to state simply, “In October 2015 we stated he was a eugenicist, which was false considering in June of 2015 he clearly repudiated the idea of eugenics programs”. I just spoke to the Chair, and it devolved into semantics games.
There is no lawsuit if we retract. We are clearly 100% wrong, and everyone has been provided video proof. Why on earth would we force a lawsuit, and all the money and time diverted from constructive activities to further libertarianism? The only answer is malice and prejudice.
Does anyone else feel forcing a lawsuit, rather than retracting a statement falsely accusing a member in good standing of the LPF of being a eugenicist and terrorist, is a poor use of LPF funds and time?
I am considering taking this to the party membership and press, but was going to give the Chair time to reconsider and my fellow EC members time to give me some input.
Mr. Perenich, please answer honestly if you were provided my retraction letter for review yesterday, as I believe the Chair may have ied to me about that. Mr. Invictus has already stated, in writing, that he would accept that retraction.
Please explain to the EC how the LPF could be liable for issuing a retraction Augustus Invictus has already accepted could possibly open us to liability? He is wiling to sign a notarized release of liability if we issue the retraction. What am I missing? Is it you who wants the LPF to incur unnecessary legal fees or Charlez? For the record I suspect it is Charlez, and I am far more likely to be taking this issue to the LPF membership and press than the BAR Association.
Whatever are you talking about? I never told you I sent anything to Perenich. Indeed, other than his email to me I’ve had no communication with him.
I asked you if you were going to issue the retraction, or if we were going to vote on it. You replied “legal rejected it”. If “legal” is not Mr. Perenich, who is “legal”?
How DARE you speak of bullying after the way Mr. Invictus was treated. I just called a couple lawyer friends. The RETAINER ALONE for a lawsuit like this, according to them, is roughly $10,000.00
Mr. Treasurer, what is the current balance of our treasury? $20-30,000.00? So the chair is attempting to force a situation that will empty 1/3-1/2 of our entire treasury to prevent retracting a lie? He refuses to allow us to make that determination first?
Sorry King Charlez, you do not get to shove this down the throats of the EC and membership and call me a bully for rejecting it. This si not the Kingdom of Alexandria, this is the Libertarian Party of Florida.
The only person being bullied here is Augustus Invictus. I just spoke to him. He has agreed to sign a Release of Liability if we release the retraction.
Expenditures and legal cases are the business of this body per our Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules. Please answer your professional opinion as to whether or not the LPF could be held liable for any civil action if Augustus Invictus signs a Release of Liability on the condition we release the attached retraction, and we subsequently release it according to the terms of said Release of Liability.imple retraction of an obviously false statement that has created a year and a half of
Sorry Char-lez, the bullies are the enemies of Mr. Invictus whom you seem willing to dump the larger part of our treasury to prevent a simple retraction of an obviously false statement that has created a year and a half of bad press, that has morphed into violence.
I am more concerned with my responsibilities to the membership and my constituents, who do not deserve to see their Treasury wiped out I am not keeping this insanity private if you continue your bully tactics and irresponsible threat to the financial security of the LPF.
To add insult to injury, the same Paul Stanton who filed this motion, actually DID go to the press when he realized he may not win the debate within the Executive Committee. Scott Powers, of Florida Politics, emailed Augustus after Paul leaked the story for comment. Scott is the go to guy for Stanton’s hit pieces on Augustus throughout the election cycle for those unaware. A cursory Google search will show the hit pieces on Augustus that he wrote at Stanton’s behest throughout the campaign. You will also notice the story was leaked to him, and thus it had gone public a little after noon today, before I was discussing it with the Chair and my fellow EC members. That will also be in the Google drive, link in the footnotes. (3)
All these texts and E-mails will be the subject of a discovery motion, and multiple members were directly discussing the matter with Augustus, so the idea I am somehow to blame would be ridiculous, even if I was not one of the only ones working to ward off a costly suit. To date he has still not filed a suit. He graciously agreed to extend his original time to allow the EC to debate the matter. You can See Region Representative Marc Tancer and others directly communicating with Augustus via email. I will provide the entire exchange in the Google drive link in footnotes as well. (4)
You will see a particularly hilarious moment when Paul Stanton suggests I recuse myself from any discussion or vote because I am an unpaid editor on a website associated with the LPF member in question. I am involved in all sorts of things with all sorts of members, the idea it is a conflict of interest to try to help resolve an issue for them, friend or not is patently absurd. My character is above reproach in this regard, as I recently spoke out on Stanton’s behalf in an EC meeting before he was on the committee. He was right and I defended him. As I defend Augustus, James Weeks, or Jeff Wood, and anyone else being bullied by those in power, if you are unaware of my championing of Libertarians bullied by overzealous executive committees, I linked some articles in the footnotes.(5)
Of course, the elephant in the room is the fact that even though he won the primary last August, Paul Stanton still talks about Augustus daily to everyone and anyone who will listen to him. He was the one who suggested incurring a $10,000.00 estimated legal retainer rather than see us retract the statement. If there is anyone with bias in the matter, or conflict of interest, the man should find a mirror. He is the only person not being fair in all of this. I am confident that any member or officer of the LPF, or any person reading the exchanges will see I was the most fact driven, and concerned with avoiding unnecessary time or money wasted, and i warned the Chair it would devolve into this nonsense. I also warned the EC not to confirm him. I encourage the members of Region 7 to replace this buffoon immediately with someone not obsessed with Augustus Invictus so we can get back to work. His presence is a distraction and he does nothing but find ways to obstruct and be a smug contrarian.
I have asked him to cite the issues related to the Constitution, Bylaws, or Standing Rules I violated. He has not. His entire motion is a vague, so I will quote the areas of the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules that give me standing as an Executive Committee member to work with the Chair and Membership to resolve a situation. Prior to Paul Stanton’s motion we were making progress, and the Chair had already instructed Alison Foxall to remove the offending motion. If you go to the ink you can confirm this.
As to whether or not it is appropriate to discuss these issues, I will quote the relevant portions of the Constitution, Bylaws, and Standing Rules that give the Executive Committee and its members the right to have a say in this matter.
LPF Bylaws, Section 6
* E. The Executive Committee shall have the power to delegate the handling of funds.
—-( I have the authority to question large expenditures)
* (2) No purchase shall be made or authorized by the LPF unless there are sufficient funds to recompense.
—-(I have asked the Treasurer in writing for a current cash balance to deterrnine our ability to comply with this portion.)
* (3) No one shall have the authority to contract for goods or services on behalf of the LPF without prior written approval of
the Executive Committee.
—-(I not only have a right, but a duty to be involved in discussions about retaining legal services)
The person making the demand is the one who communicated with us, he is an LPF member in good standing, and is amenable to a resolution that does not involve legal proceedings. These are replies to his correspondence, which all were taking part in. No lawsuit has been filed, and this conversation has resulted in the extension of the previous deadline in good faith. This individual is a member of the LPF in good standing, and has the right to petition this body for a redress of grievance. Furthermore if this is not resolved, each individual member of the Executive Committee faces legal action, and thus, I have standing to attempt an amicable solution.
All of this is subject to a discovery motion by his attorney if these negotiations fail, so I am not exposing any information to Mr. Invictus or his attorney if these negotiations fail.
Mr. Invictus, as an LPF member has rights, which I cite here, including being a part of our meetings, and I was told our emails are public record, besides being subject to the people you claim I am misrepresenting myself to for the purpose of negotiating. I will remind you my position is on the signature line of every email, so the idea I represented myself as anything other than a member of this Committee and a County Chair is absurd and baseless.
LPF Constitution, Article II
No change in the Bylaws or Standing Rules may have the effect of disenfranchising a member.9
No change in the Bylaws or Standing Rules shall deny the autonomy of an individual member or an affiliate party, except as provided in the Constitution.10
ARTICLE I Membership
Members registered for the meetings have the privilege as a delegate voting at the Annual Business Meeting, the right of appointment to committees, the right to attend committee meetings as observers or witnesses, the right to nomination and election to party office, and the right to nomination to a office for which they are qualified by law
In order to confirm he agrees to sign a Release of Liability I am more that within my rights to ask if he is amenable to do so. Under our Bylaws I have a right to see that we have efficient budgeting of legal matters, one of the issues I specifically raised. We have expressly NOT delegated authority to the Chair to incur $10,000.00+ in legal fees, and it is reasonable to assume this will cost more than $100.00 he is allowed to spend without approval from this body, of which I am a member. I was working with the Chair anyways, as the texts and emails prove.
There is no rule or bylaw against sharing our business with the pubic, in fact, I advocate we do it for just this reason. There is no lawsuit. Only a refusal to retract an obvious lie, and the refusal to do so WILL incur expenses greater than the Chair is authorized to make without EC approval. We are specifically allowed to meet via email, and thus any member, or observers or witnesses are eligible to observe, as I already noted. I will cite the Governing Documents below.
Section 6. Finance and Accounting
C. The Executive Committee shall cause an efficient system of accounting and budgeting to be installed and maintained, including audit and legal necessities.27
Donations should be made to the LPF in keeping with the laws governing donations to political parties and candidates. Such funds shall be expended at the discretion of the Executive Committee.
“The Executive Committee shall have authority to raise and expend funds for purposes relating to party business, in accordance with the party Bylaws, Article IV.
The Executive Committee may delegate authority to the Chair to expend funds relating to party business.
The chair of the LPF-EC is authorized to spend, at the chairs sole discretion, up to $100 per month without prior approval for any LPF business need. The chair shall be required to account and report with proper documentation including at a minimum of receipts all expenditures to the entire LPF-EC, for all expenses at the first business meeting after the prior month for such expenditures in that prior month.
The chair may submit proper documentation for reimbursement to the treasurer for such expenses if the chair makes payments from personal funds. Such reimbursements shall also be reported as any other expense.
In no event shall the chair spend more than $200 before a report is made to the LPF-EC.
ARTICLE V Executive Committee Meetings
The Executive Committee may without meeting, conduct business by communication, voting on questions put to them by or with the approval of the chairperson. Such vote shall be kept by the Secretary until the next meeting and then such vote shall be incorporated in the minutes. A majority vote of the committee shall prevail. If a majority of affirmative votes is not recorded within fifteen (15) days, the question will have failed to pass. (Amended by the Executive Committee, 7-10-93)
The following is a direct quote from the email thread, showing, even as I was responding to the motion, I thought the attorney we were talking to was the LPF Lawyer I had demanded the Chair put us in contact with, this was about the point I realized this was the other attorney, regardless, I can still try and propose a solution, and to do so I have to speak to the Attorney, and any EC member has that right, especially in furtherance of our fiduciary responsibilities to our constituents and the general membership.
“The lawyer Mr. Perenich was the legal representation the Chair referred to in our conversation as rejecting our letter. I have asked for clarification as to who our legal representation is if not him. Is he the attorney for Augustus? Since I am facing individual liability in this matter, are you stating I am not allowed to seek an amicable mediation after they showed good faith in extending the deadline so we could do so?
Is the Chair refusing to name the legal entities he is consulting and violating the Constitution and Bylaws? Perhaps a motion of my own is in order. Are you saying Mr. Perenich is NOT our “legal”? Who then, is our “legal”? again, a question I am well within my rights to ask, as I have been told they rejected a solution that could avoid wiping out a large part of our treasury.
I have not represented myself as anything other than who I am, and I have every right to discuss these matters.
I have cited the portion of our bylaws that state I have an interest in the legal matters and subsequent expenditures they may incur. Please cite the portion of the Constitution, Standing Rules, or Bylaws, I have broken by attempting to resolve this matter amicably as a representative of the Executive Committee.
The violations here are that of the Chair, who is seeking legal advice without consulting the Executive Committee, or giving us a chance to vote on a public statement.
ARTICLE VIII Spokesmanship
The Chairperson shall speak for and at the direction of the Executive Committee and the Party.
The assertion that I am not allowed to debate the direction given the chair by the Executive Committee, discuss financial expenditures, or seek amicable resolutions to issues brought before this body by the membership shows Paul Stanton’s gross ignorance of our rights, duties, and responsibilities as Executive Committee members. Engaging in an email and text message discussion with fellow EC members and the Chair is not a violation of the NAP. This motion is almost as ridiculous as the idea Paul Stanton is a legitimate political figure, and I hope the members of Region 7 can remove this plague from this body, which had finally become unified and productive before his appointment. He has vindicated me, and shown the entire EC and LPF members what a petty and small minded person he really is.
I will close with the press release I proposed, so the membership can determine whether or not I was proposing a reasonable solution. I still think we should issue it and wash our hands of the whole debacle. I am proud of it, it rights the wrong and sends a positive message. Augustus agreed it was sufficient and if we issued it he would gladly sign a release of liability for the party and avoid the cost and hassle of a lawsuit.
March 27, 2017
Libertarian Party of Florida Retracts False
Allegations Against Augustus Invictus
On October 5, 2015, The Libertarian Party of Florida issued a press release condemning Libertarian Party of Florida Candidate for U.S. Senate, Augustus Invictus. The headline of the press release release read as follows:
The Libertarian Party of Florida condemns Augustus Sol Invictus for calling for civil war and his unwillingness to reject eugenics.
Following this press release, the Executive Committee was sent the following video, which was posted prominently on the YouTube Channel of Augustus Invictus, and dated June 1, 2015, months before the press release condemning him. He discusses the matter of his opinion on Eugenics in detail, beginning at 5 minutes, 25 seconds of the address:
It included the following quotes:
“While in law school, I wrote a paper in which I stated that we, as a society, have a duty to implement a state sponsored eugenics program. I argued that the implementation of such a program would be the most humane approach to mental and physical handicaps, incurable diseases, and other such ills afflicting humankind.
What my critics fail to take notice of, is that this paper was written between 5 and 6 years ago. I wrote the paper as a staff writer for my journal in law school. It is, of course, a cardinal sin of politics for a politician to change his mind about something, but that is the case here”. (5:29-6:02)
“The fact is, that a eugenics program in the wrong hands would be a monstrosity”. (7:19-7:25)
He continues in a detailed repudiation of state sponsored eugenics. The Libertarian Party of Florida issued the press release in order to divorce ourselves from any perception we promote state sponsored eugenics in good faith, but it has now come to light that he had made a public renunciation months before the press release. The author of the press release, who is no longer a member of the LPF, did not follow his simple request “Let us examine what I actually said, rather than parroting internet tabloids” (8:11-8:15)
As to the accusation of his promoting violence, it must be understood that free speech is extremely important to Libertarians. The explanation given by Augustus Invictus is that his writings and oratory seek to bring people into the realization that the government is at war with the American people. That taxation might not be just theft, but armed robbery. He is a member in good standing with the LPF, and since October 2015, he has continued to pursue many peaceful and legal avenues of political activity, both inside and outside the LPF. He is not being charged nor is he under indictment for any charge of promoting civil insurrection, and thus it would be inappropriate for us to continue to state in public that he is calling for civil war. His actions have proven he did not seek to create a war, or advocate for state sponsored murder, and we have no choice but to give him the benefit of the doubt.
Since October 2015, violent groups have attacked his campaign event in Portland, Oregon, where people were assaulted, and property was destroyed. Calls for violence and disruption of other Libertarian candidates and events are growing. There were riots by these groups in Berkley, California, and numerous rallies of candidates from multiple parties. On Friday, March 24, and calls for violence forced the cancellation of the Mid-Atlantic Liberty Festival in Pennsylvania, at which Augustus Invictus was to debate former Libertarian Vice Presidential candidate Will Coley. The press release from October 5, 2015 was used as a justification for these reprehensible tactics and others before them. To those who wonder why this is being released today, it is because the intimidation and violence against Libertarians and others by ANTIFA and associated groups is not theoretical. It is not a subject of debate, but a growing dark cloud that threatens free speech and civil discourse.
Therefore, the Libertarian Party of Florida retracts the press release condemning Augustus Invictus dated October 5, 2015. While the LPF had no malice at the time, it has since been found to be factually incorrect. Augustus Invictus is currently a member in good standing of the Libertarian Party of Florida. We encourage our members to reject violence in support of political goals as a fundamental Libertarian principle. We encourage the philosophical opponents of Augustus Invictus to follow the example of Will Coley, and challenge him to debate. We encourage writing, song, and peaceful assembly. We oppose those who would threaten our candidates and events with violence, and reject any person or group who would use the LPF, or its Executive Committee, to justify such actions. He speaks for himself, and his words do not necessarily represent the LPF, but we can no longer condemn him in good faith.
The Paul Stanton Bible-King Char-lez Edition
First page of a Google search for “Augustus Invictus Eugenics”
About 3,440 results (0.66 seconds)
Oct 1, 2015 – The Senate candidate, who goes by the adopted name Augustus Sol Invictus, counter-accused Wyllie of spreading “half-truths and lies” for …
Oct 5, 2015 – Two years ago, Augustus Sol Invictus walked from central Florida to the … Invictus denies he is racist pointing to his four Hispanic children and says he’s …. On his campaign website, Invictus declares his support for eugenics.
Oct 5, 2015 – He has expressed support for a eugenics program. … “The LPF has not endorsed Augustus Invictus and has not provided him with any support …
Oct 5, 2015 – Augustus Sol Invictus (he acknowledges this is not his birth name) is a … not advocate state-sponsored eugenics as a candidate, Invictus writes …
Feb 26, 2016 – Invictus has also openly endorsed eugenics, a set of practices used to “improve” people’s “genetic qualities.” Eugenics is often associated with …
You visited this page on 3/26/17.
Oct 7, 2015 – limit my search to r/eugenics. use the following search parameters to narrow your results: subreddit:subreddit: find submissions in “subreddit” …
Oct 5, 2015 – Augustus Sol Invictus is the Florida Libertarian Party’s candidate and has faced other accusations ranging from his support of eugenics, …
I have been extremely outspoken against Augustus Sol Invictus, who is currently the … He has expressed support for a eugenics program, which would sterilize, …
Screenshots of the Chair and myself, in which he claimed he was discussing matters with our lawyers, leading to the apparent confusion.
Emails prompted by Paul Stanton contacting Florida Politics, dated just after Noon on Wednesday:
Emails exchanges in which Paul Stanton claims I misrepresented myself:
Previous examples of defending right and left leaning Libertarians, and/or publishing their defenses.
They want to label you and say what’s in your head
They say you’re a nazi unless your fucking red
They’ll sit and judge you, but that’s what their against
They won’t be happy until you stand on their side of the fence
Choose a side
Left or Right
Fight or Flight
Black or White
Wrong or Right
It’s a left wing witch hunt
RAF and Rash kids: a bunch of fucking fruits
With Che Guevera T-shirts and 30 eyelet boots
If you’re not a communist they say that you’re a fascist
They don’t make sense with all their heads stuck so far up their asses
Choose a side
Left or Right
Fight or Flight
Black or White
Wrong or Right
It’s a left wing witch hung
And I’m not going to live my life
Trying to prove myself to your left wing witch hunt
Only God above can judge me so go fuck yourself
And your left wing witch hunt
They want to label you and say what’s in your head
I’m not a fucking Nazi but I’d still rather be dead than red